What the photos may tell of her last moments

[Blues]

too much credit...

Now I am of the belief that this was the work of the lover - we agree there - but I do not think that this is the work of a copycat. A copycat would have continued to "copy" whenever the situation required it - "Blame it on Jack...just mutilate her." And murders would have continued - possibly escalated or worsened in severity if that's possible. The problem with this is that it assumes that not only the person can kill (a serious personality flaw) but that he can also chop a body up at will (a much MORE serious psychological disorder). Some can kill...but what happened to MJK is the work of a heartless F who not only did it out of extreme HATRED for her, but did it with the ease of someone who had DONE it before. Someone kills someone...that might happen...but for them to then take a knife and defile every inch of them...reach into their rib cage and pull out half a lung...and then cut out their heart? This is not a case of "Holy S...I killed her...Oh well, I'll just pull out the surgical gear, gash her throat to the vertabrae...deflesh the thighs...the forearms...seperate an ARM!...the BREASTS...the liver the uterus"...oh my Lord...This is not the work of someone who wants to make it LOOK like someone else did it. To perform this kind of work, you MUSTMUSTMUST be even more heartless than a murderer. You must be sicksicksick . Jack the Ripper - if we are to believe that he murdered the women that were disembowelled/mutilated etc. (for if we don't agree that he did murder THOSE women, this whole website and conversation is moot) then it speaks of a sick progression that ends with the death of MJK. MJK, IMO took to entertaining Johns in her room - once Joe was gone - in her room because JTR killed on the streets. She was "safe" in her room. She controlled that scenario. She thought. Her clothing etc. speaks to the fact that she was comfortable. I just cannot - and never will - buy the idea that someone can simply RUIN an individual to the extent the MJK was because they needed to "copy" JTR. It doesn't follow rational sense that ANYONE can mutilate someone to this extent. Fear of being "caught" (which this person wasn't at the time...he was in the confines of a room that at the time posed no threat) doesn't jibe. He was able to go about his work at his leisure. Now - a murderer goes about his work and then leaves. This is not the work of a simple murderer. This is the work of a depraved man. Depravity like that does not simply wash over you. It is learned...it is practiced and it is stomached through practice. This is not the work of a ONE TIME KILLER. No way. Not gonna buy that in a million years. But - I'm open to your views - kidding of course?

Blues

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"God forbid I should get my crayons out"

I would not say that, Sam. In fact, I would much welcome if you did so. As you can see, Ben keeps claiming the inclaimable by saying that my "insistence upon inapplicable experiments and the misappropriatin of mathematics is unhelpful and alienating", and you know as well as I do that it is in no way inapplicable to show diagrams and photos that are very clearly related to the pictures we are discussing - on the contrary, it WILL provide material that is at least roughly comparable.
It is all very simple, really: An object lying on a flat surface, photograped from an angle varying between 0 and 90 degrees will obscure the surface behind it, and the size of the area obscured is, with the angle of the lens unchanged, dependant on one thing and one thing only, namely the size of the object. If we were to put a cube of a millimetre on the sheet of Kellys bed, it WILL obscure the area behind it to some extent, up to the moment when the camera is looking at it straight from above. And when the camera is looking at it from a zero angle, it will in fact theoretically obscure the bed totally, to the end of it. This of course calls for a perfectly flat bed, but there you are - that is what is going to happen.

These are simple, simple rules, and they of course state that - regardless of my diagrams and regardless of my photo - the area directly behind Kellys head and neck will not be visible. And it is perfectly viable to make an estimation of how big an area that would be obscured once you have established the approximate angle from which the picture was taken, in combination with the size of the obscuring objects, in this case Kellys head and neck. Itīs beyond belief that I even have to argue it, and even more crazy that somebody should have the audacity to call it "wilfully misleading" and "inapplicable". Do correct me if I am wrong, Sam, or at least supply me with a comment on what I am saying! And preferably, be my guest and get them crayons out!

Up til then, I will gladly discuss the MJK photos, and I think that is exactly what I have been doing, bolstering my arguments with a rough diagram and a photo from a comparable angle, heightwise.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"And the band plays on.

R.I.P. Thomas Bond."

Youīre having a field day, arenīt you!

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"He's welcome to disagree with me"

I thought, Ben, that I was not only disagreeing with you, but also with an unidentified number of highly respected members of these boards who all deemed my reasoning unfair...? Gee, am I curious...!
Anyhow, I prefer disagreeing with you (and you-know-who, whereas I donīt) to disagreeing with the laws of nature.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:
"Thread related.......can anyone deny that by the state of Mary Kellys clothing, or lack of it, that she was in the company of someone she either intended to be, or had been, intimate with?
Ok...good."

Of course it can be denied, Michael. People undress to go to bed all the time.
That said, you know that I favour Fleming as her killer, so to that extent Iīm with you - she was with someone that she would allow to see her undressed. But if there was sex intended is something we canīt tell. Maybe she just told him that he was welcome to bunk with her, "yeah, yeah, love, long as you let me sleep ..."

Just as Mr Burns "Excellent" to my mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Byzantine]

MJK, IMO took to entertaining Johns in her room - once Joe was gone - in her room because JTR killed on the streets. She was "safe" in her room. She controlled that scenario. She thought. Her clothing etc. speaks to the fact that she was comfortable.

While the situation would be plausible, there are no reports of either Barnett pimping or Kelly systematically bringing Johns to her room. The scenario would require both Barnett and McCarthy to know more than they let on.

I just cannot - and never will - buy the idea that someone can simply RUIN an individual to the extent the MJK was because they needed to "copy" JTR. It doesn't follow rational sense that ANYONE can mutilate someone to this extent.

Which returns us to an age-old argument. How exactly do you copy another killer's work when your own goes far beyond it?

[Fisherman]

Byzantine writes:

"there are no reports of either Barnett pimping or Kelly systematically bringing Johns to her room. The scenario would require both Barnett and McCarthy to know more than they let on. "

There are not, Byzantine, so in that respect you are correct. There is, however, a snippet from the Daily Telegraph of November 10, that goes like this:

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

...and that pretty much goes to show what was common practice, although Barnett may have been a hinderance as long as he stayed in the number 13 room.

...but, as Sam would (will??) say - this is the wrong thread to discuss it on!

The best!
Fisherman

[Blues]

I've destroyed this thread enough...but-

...I apologize for calling JB a "pimp" with the smilie...I was actually just being goofy. He was too busy try to sell uterus'sesses to be pimpin'. I also believe that with the newspaper report on the goings on at Miller's and the fact that MJK was seen bringing several men back to her room that night - there is sufficient evidence that this was somewhat common...especially on a rainy night. I also think anyone with a room that could stay off the street would.

But, like I said, I have contributed far too much to the off topicness of this thread. I'm going to go make up some more words now.

Blues

[Sam Flynn]

Thread related.......can anyone deny that by the state of Mary Kellys clothing, or lack of it, that she was in the company of someone she either intended to be, or had been, intimate with?

It's rather in the nature of the prostitute's business to be intimate with strangers, Mike.

Now, does anyone remember the witness who is accreditted with seeing Mary and a man together enter her room?

Mary Ann Cox....good.

-Who is the witness that sees Mary leave her room after that?There is none.
-Who is the witness that sees Mary return to her room? The discreditted one.

Excellent.....just like Mr Burns says it.

Now, the room being dark and quiet by 1:30am... etc etc etc

Not so good, Mike - and definitely NOT thread-related.

Different subject altogether - no need to introduce the subject on this thread, even by tacking on a tenuous reference such as:

What can be gleaned from these small factoids, in connection with the pictures of Mary in MJK1, and MJK3?

If it's not "Kudzu hutchinsonii", it's "Kudzu she-stayed-in-after-one-o-clockii" around here! Different species, but equally invasive if you let them take hold

[Ben]

I do that it is in no way inapplicable to show diagrams and photos that are very clearly related to the pictures we are discussing - on the contrary, it WILL provide material that is at least roughly comparable.

For goodness sake, can't you ever be succinct and brief? Please don't do other readers the hideous discourtesy of telling them what they do and do not know, and expecting them to swallow your claim that the test you tackily concocted using members of your only family is remotely comparable to the Kelly photograph.

Gareth created a thread entitled "What the photos may tell of her last moments", and my observations have been pursuant to that very premise. I've stated that I believe can be cleaned from the photograph, specifically that the blood on Kelly's pillow is demonstrably not concentrated towards the extreme corner of the bed to an extent that she can be pinpointed to that extemity at the time of her death.

I have therefore utlilized this thread for its correct purpose.

What I haven't done is ignore the photograph, and invent a load of guessed-up numbers and inapplicable experiments - using family members, socks, Sewish newspapers and millimetres - and attempt to foist it off as an "exact science".

An object lying on a flat surface

A pillow isn't a flat "surface", as I've already explained.

That's what makes your angles and measurements so nonsensical. A pillow will naturally sag as a head and neck rests upon it, so the full height of the neck couldn't possibly obscure what ever substance existed directly behind it.

And it is perfectly viable to make an estimation of how big an area that would be obscured once you have established the approximate angle

...Just as it's perfectly viable to point out the many flaws in your guessowork that don't take into account important variables. If something is "approximate" then it is not "established" is it?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
" If something is "approximate" then it is not "established" is it?"

If, Ben, we can approximate the height of the Eiffel tower to somewhere between 250 and 350 meters, then it is actually established that it is not a thousand metres high. If we cannot approximate it as being between 250 and 350 metres, it may BE a thousand metres for all we know.
Fair is fair, Ben, and I never asked for more than that.

I will tell you that from the outset I have taken great care not to put your arguments at a disadvantage. In the photo, I used thicker, softer pillows than the apparently not so very soft pillow in the Kelly photo. If you take a look at the top border of the pillow behind her, you will see that it seems angled slightly down as it moves away from her head, instead of the other way around. This is illogical, since the head would reasonably cause the pillow to sag at least somewhat. To my mind, the explanation to the anomaly is simple. The pillow probably DOES sag a bit closer to her head, but we cannot see the pillow that close behind head - too much of the pillow is simply hidden to confirm our mutual suspicion of a sagging. Therefore, Iīm afraid when you write " A pillow will naturally sag as a head and neck rests upon it, so the full height of the neck couldn't possibly obscure what ever substance existed directly behind it", Iīm afraid I dont share that wiew. The sagging, apparently softer pillow behind the boy WAS obscured in the photo, and there is nothing strange about that. The sagging would have to be quite substantial to reveal itself behind the neck when the picture is taken from so low an angle as indeed both my pic and the Kelly pic were.
I will also urge you to take a look at how the pillow reacts to the weight of Kellys head in MJK1. There is no obvious sagging at all visible in front of her. In fact, the whole head is resting ON the pillow and not sunk into it in the fashion the boys head does. One of the obvious reasons for this would be that the pillow is not a soft one, and another reason of course is that she had her head propped up by a breast, two kidneys and a uterus, arguably adding even more weight to my suggestion that her head and neck would obscure a large area.

I put the lens height to 160 centimetres, though I think it would be fair to guess that the height was lesser than that. This is actually substantiated by the fact that you can see both the left and the right side of the boys thorax, whereas only the left side of Kellys thorax is visible. That means that I have a steeper angle in my picture than the one used in the Kelly picture. Thus her head and neck would reasonably hide more than the boys.

Judging from the quality of the pic on my screen - and it is a good one - it is impossible to say whether what we see above Kellys neck is the linen behind her. There may be a further obstruction from sight by bloodmatted hair. I for one cannot rule that possibility out. If so, the same applies - even more ground is obscured.

I used a bed that is obviously a lower one than the one Kelly was lying in, also not helping my cause.

These disadvantages to the case I was trying to make, was something I offered to put what I was saying beyond reasonable doubt. If I could hide that newspaper behind the boys neck and head, I think there could be little doubt that it must be accepted that the same could be done in Kellys case.

Finally, I will stress that I am not saying that I must be right in every instance on this matter! Nor do I have any personal interest in claiming that the distance obstructed behind Kelly must have been drier that the bit we can see towards the corner.
The knowledge I wanted to provide from the outset was that of an unobtainable knowledge - I wanted to prove beyond reasonable doubt that we can not draw any conclusions as to the state of the linen behind Kellys head and neck for a fair distance, indeed a distance so substantial that we cannot rule out the possibility that the condition of the linen covering it may have been part of the factual material Phillips used to allow himself to firmly state that he was sure that Kellys body had been moved.

The means I used to put forward this suggestion of mine are of no interest as far as I can see. If I use a sock to mark a line or if I use a piece of string carries no weight to the outcome, just as the provenance of the boy on the bed does not do that either. Surely the factuality of what the picture represents and itīs likeness to the Kelly picture outweighs what kind of the material the marking sock was made of?

I am truly sorry that you choose to call my picture of it all "nonsensical", and I genuinely feel that suggesting such things on your behalf without presenting any built-under material to substantiate your claims are totally detrimental to the whole discussion. I sincerely hope that if we are to somehow proceed with this debate, from now on we refrain from such things for the benefit of the boards and our fellow posters.
Earlier today, I have expressed my regrets that this whole discussion has taken such an ugly turn, and I donīt mind doing it again. We make a poor couple for discussing matters on which we are not agreed, Ben, and unless we both feel like being thrown out of the boards, maybe we should shape up as best as we could.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I will tell you that from the outset I have taken great care not to put your arguments at a disadvantage. In the photo, I used thicker, softer pillows than the apparently not so very soft pillow in the Kelly photo.

A very reasonable effort, Fisherman, but in my humble and non-antagonistic opinion, "pillow softness" is not something that can be accurately gauged from a photograph, besides which there are many other variables to consider; the manner in which she was lying in that position, the length of time spend there, the angle of her jaw. Variables that are nigh on impossible to recreate faithfully without proper knowledge of the original angles and measurements. We can speculate as to feet and inches just about, but not centimetres and millimetres.

The pillow probably DOES sag a bit closer to her head, but we cannot see the pillow that close behind head - too much of the pillow is simply hidden to confirm our mutual suspicion of a sagging.

Well, again, it depends on our definition of "close". I believe the sagging and and angle of the camera in relation to the photograph would tend to militate against a large gap between the neck and the nearest piece of visible pillow. I also think the blood-stained bit of pillow we can see occupies an appreciable area of material on the right-hand side, not a tiny corner.

In fact, the whole head is resting ON the pillow and not sunk into it in the fashion the boys head does.

Ah yes, but the sagging will occur, given that we're not talking about a flat, immovable surface here, and it is this very factor that would naturally allow more of the pillow to be visible behind the neck. Again, we're working from the basis of the Kelly photograph, so I trust you will not take offense when I urge caution against using the "boy-on-bed" as too faithful a comparison.

This is actually substantiated by the fact that you can see both the left and the right side of the boys thorax, whereas only the left side of Kellys thorax is visible.

It's not substantiated, unfortunately, because we have no means of ascertaining whether or not the boy's supine pose is an accurate reflection of Kelly's in death. To attribute the amount of thorax visible in both photographs to the height of the camera may be a premature conclusion. The organs under the head would scarcely have affected the neck, and it wasn't as if the organs mentioned would have been piled on top of one another.

There may be a further obstruction from sight by bloodmatted hair. I for one cannot rule that possibility out

Exactly. Blood-matted hair. Blood on the neck. Blood directly behind the neck and blood on the pillow in continuous patches towards the partition. That would tend to militate very heavily against the notion of a pristine white dry patch between that bloody area of the neck and the nearest visible blood patch.

If I could hide that newspaper behind the boys neck and head, I think there could be little doubt that it must be accepted that the same could be done in Kellys case.

There's vast doubt, actually, because we only have it on your authority that the boy photograph is a faithful recreation. I personally believe that you haven't accounted for several crucial variables, and that, in any event, your angles and measurements may be significantly awry. That's why I'd urge caution against using that photograph as a means of arriving at any definite conclusion. Instead, I'd take Gareth's lead, and consider what can be gleaned from studying the Kelly photo itself.

The knowledge I wanted to provide from the outset was that of an unobtainable knowledge - I wanted to prove beyond reasonable doubt that we can not draw any conclusions as to the state of the linen behind Kellys head and neck for a fair distance

Fair enough, but you must understand that I intend no ill will be stating, most sincerely, that I don't believe you've done that, or even that you could do that. We just don't have enough necessary "givens" to even begin to start talking in terms of "proof" and "beyond reasonable doubt".

Surely the factuality of what the picture represents and itīs likeness to the Kelly picture outweighs what kind of the material the marking sock was made of?

Of course, but I don't think you should use words like "factuality" where they don't apply.

I am truly sorry that you choose to call my picture of it all "nonsensical", and I genuinely feel that suggesting such things on your behalf without presenting any built-under material to substantiate your claims

But the purpose of the thread is to discuss anything that can be gleaned from the photograph itself, and as far as I'm concerned, the "story" the photograph communicates is fairly unambiguous and not consistent with the notion that Kelly was pressed up to to the wall when she was killed.

I regret my part in the ugliness too, but as I pointed out very early on, it's absolutely essential to cultivate an "agree to disagree" awareness. Very important, especially when it looks like a stalemate is in session. Think of it as a litmus test, if you like. Try to assess the likelihood of your opponent saying, "Oh yeah, I see your point, I retract everything and agree with you" at any stage. I don't think you're going to do that any time soon, and it doesn't look like I'm going to. So instead we have to reconcile ourselves to our disagreement. To agree to disagree. It's when other people forsake that option in favour of continuing an unseemly onslaught that I tend to lose patience, but it needn't happen.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

This is just a small insertion Ben, I dont want an invitation to this dance, believe me...

But....the photos certainly do not suggest she was on the upper right side of the bed pressed against the wall when her throat is cut....the stains on the wall by the right side of the bed, above the median middle, so.. upper right, do suggest that. The blood evidence on the bed, and behind her head is from who knows when, but we know that an artery sprays only so long.

I just think the actual point being microanalysed is moot...there is evidence of arterial spray on the partition wall, by the upper right side of the bed... as reported. She was attacked there...pressed against the wall, the pillow, a sheet over her head or while she wore a bonnet,...does it really matter this much? I feel badly for you two, my god it must be tiring....but I dont go much for prolonged sparring here myself, so I suppose I dont get why its worth it to you both.

I like you both, what can I say? A friend has got to at least try and bridge the gap.

In truth on the photos I agree with you on the ambiguity, but there is a bottom line in her state of dress alone, and that coupled with no noise = Known intimately by Mary.

There is no satisfactory explanation for her killer killing her while partly undressed, without noise, that does not include a known man.

Or threadingly put....Mary was in the company of someone she knew well in her last few minutes, by the photos.

Best regards

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Try to assess the likelihood of your opponent saying, "Oh yeah, I see your point, I retract everything and agree with you" at any stage."

My stance on this matter, Ben, is that anybody who is faced with arguments, sketches, diagrams - any form of factual proof or evidence- that goes to prove that they may have been wrong, actually owes it to the rest of the members of the board to recognize this. If we all were to stand by our original wiews purely for the reason that we dislike admitting that we may have been wrong, then the boards will be handed over to petty prestige fights and egoistic quibbling.

Now, please dont get me wrong on this matter. I am not speaking about the issue that has had us gnawing away at each others bones. I am through with that issue, at least for the moment. I have presented my case as best as I could, and I will let it rest until further notice. I am merely offering my wiew on the principal matter of how things are best discussed on the boards and the risks involved in not doing so with the aim to add insight to the debates going on here.
I feel that as I enter a debate, there is every chance that I can be either proven wrong, or at least brought to insight of the fact that there is a possibility that my reasoning on any given topic may be somehow flawed, faulty or incomplete.
In such a case, given the choice of standing by my early convictions although I have realized they may be wrong, and the choice of recognizing that my fellow posters arguments for the benefit of the boards, I sincerely hope I will choose the latter alternative.

All the very best to you, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

My stance on this matter, Ben, is that anybody who is faced with arguments, sketches, diagrams - any form of factual proof or evidence- that goes to prove that they may have been wrong, actually owes it to the rest of the members of the board to recognize this.

Fisherman, do you not understand by now that this is precisely the type of rhetoric that ultimately results in unseemly slanging matches? When I say I disagree with you and the methods you've used, I'm telling the truth, and when I "stand by my original view", I do so because I don't believe the opposing arguments have done anything to disabuse me of it. That doesn't mean you should be ridiculed for trying, and I apologise if earlier posts conveyed that impression.

There are many issues that I straddle the fence with; ask me about Stride, the GSG and the Lusk letter, and I'm usually very maleable - altering my stance in accordance with the most convincing arguments around. This is not a case in point, however, and I'm sure you'll respect my sincerety in saying so, just as I believe you to be totally honest when you say you disagree with me.

Reciprocal best regards,

Ben